Declining radio audiences

[TheBigA]

This happened in the major iHeart owned WFLA... The talk station is a shell of what it use to be.

It still manages to cover the news, especially when disasters like Milton hit. Nothing is like it used to be.

Of course, ownership wouldn't make all their nut with them, and it might be a small part, but putting programming on underused AM sticks, say formats not widely heard anymore, like Top 40 50s-60s-70s oldies, smooth jazz, classical, etc., could be a way of showing interest in this audience.

Has nothing to do with station owners, and everything to do with advertisers. They don't advertise in music formats aimed at older people. They put all that money in news/talk/sports. If there was any ad money, the owners would LOVE to play that music, since most of them are in that age group. Some stations run packaged music formats for this audience.

 

[wadio]

And a pre-roll commercial is a negative to me. A commercial or two within is okay but not when I click play.

YES!

 

[davideduardo]

Wow. Stunning numbers.
I had suspected radio had lost a gigantic chunk of listeners, but it isn't that surprising, given its poor state of programming, constant canning deejays and news people, lack of creative programming (radio sounds the same in most markets, "cookie cutter") and overall directionless and lack of creativity and vision ("the bottom line is the only thing that matters").

Radio still has nearly as MANY listeners as 20 years ago. A high 80's percent of all adults use radio weekly, versus about 94% in 1994. What has changed is the amount of time each one spends with radio.

About a half the decrease in time spent listening is due to the change to the People Meter. It measured more precisely than the diary and did not do what diarykeepers did: round up and skip interruptions. The other half of time spent listening's loss is due to everything from video games to cell phones to streaming.

Oh, I am sick of the "radio sounds the same in every market". Of course it does, and should, and that is good because it means in every market stations have discovered the formats and content and songs that people like. Really, Dondd, do you see Coke having different bottles and a different color and taste in each market? Do you see the Big Mac have a different "secret sauce" in different cities?

I use to work in radio (news) in the 80s before moving to TV news. Overall, the medium was much better then.

"Overall" radio billed about 300% more in real, inflation adjusted dollars then, and all the while there were thousands fewer stations on the air.

Radio's biggest issue is that it was designed by the FCC and FRC around 80 years ago to be highly local. Today, we are seeing the end of most big local businesses, all being replaced by Target and Walmart and chain outlets of every kind, from auto parts to restaurants. Those businesses don't buy local media. They buy national, whether it is TV, podcasts, or web services.

Most of the local businesses that were big enough to support radio are gone. "Main Street" is full of vacancies, the malls are dying and only the big box retailers and national brands buy advertising... but not for the most part on national radio (and if they do, it is in the top 25 to 50 markets only).

 

[davideduardo]

This.
Listeners do notice when their favorite announcers or news people are suddenly axed and, if there is any news left, it's some weaker individual doing "generic" and "statewide" news in major markets like Tampa and Orlando with little local content. This happened in the major iHeart owned WFLA... The talk station is a shell of what it use to be.

When a longtime radio host was let go from a leading "Magic 108" AC, it was in the local papers and listeners complained online about her sudden axing.



It's always galled me how radio couldn't find ways to serve these older, highly loyal listeners.

Again, (and I should write a single keystroke macro for this) advertisers don't want to reach older listeners. If you are lucky enough to be allowed a glimpse into their proprietary research, you see a variety of factors depending on the product or service:

• Older people are empty nesters. They spend less.
• They have life-long brand preferences; it costs more to convince them than the possible profit involved.
• They are on limited retirement incomes and have little or no discretionary income.
• The product an advertiser is selling is designed for younger people to begin with.

If national accounts want to reach older people, they use national, and not local, media. One buy, national coverage. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and some of the stream / cable channels that run old TV shows all day. The AARP magazine, websites for health information. And so on.

Local radio is very hard to buy. Every station needs an order, copy or a recorded spot, verification of invoices, payments and accounting. Even with big groups, buying still involves filling in with many operators to reach an audience of comparable size in every market.

Of course, ownership wouldn't make all their nut with them, and it might be a small part, but putting programming on underused AM sticks, say formats not widely heard anymore, like Top 40 50s-60s-70s oldies, smooth jazz, classical, etc., could be a way of showing interest in this audience.

And who would buy ads on those stations?

"Smooth Jazz" is a format that has been dead for about two decades. 40's and 50's music gets people in their 80's. Even 60's and 70's only gets folks in their 70's. Nearly no advertiser has any interest in those. And none can be done on AM as nobody will put up with music on AM any longer (except for a few ethnic stations where the audience has no other choices).

 

[tbolt909]

Radio still has nearly as MANY listeners as 20 years ago. A high 80's percent of all adults use radio weekly, versus about 94% in 1994. What has changed is the amount of time each one spends with radio.

About a half the decrease in time spent listening is due to the change to the People Meter. It measured more precisely than the diary and did not do what diarykeepers did: round up and skip interruptions. The other half of time spent listening's loss is due to everything from video games to cell phones to streaming.

Oh, I am sick of the "radio sounds the same in every market". Of course it does, and should, and that is good because it means in every market stations have discovered the formats and content and songs that people like. Really, Dondd, do you see Coke having different bottles and a different color and taste in each market? Do you see the Big Mac have a different "secret sauce" in different cities?

"Overall" radio billed about 300% more in real, inflation adjusted dollars then, and all the while there were thousands fewer stations on the air.

Radio's biggest issue is that it was designed by the FCC and FRC around 80 years ago to be highly local. Today, we are seeing the end of most big local businesses, all being replaced by Target and Walmart and chain outlets of every kind, from auto parts to restaurants. Those businesses don't buy local media. They buy national, whether it is TV, podcasts, or web services.

Most of the local businesses that were big enough to support radio are gone. "Main Street" is full of vacancies, the malls are dying and only the big box retailers and national brands buy advertising... but not for the most part on national radio (and if they do, it is in the top 25 to 50 markets only).

Boo Hoo for all the Radio corporations that can no longer find advertisers. They swallowed up all the stations to create Radio Empires. For years they inflicted 9 minute commercial breaks on listeners. They are part of the Capitalism System just like Walmart and McDonald's. Blockbuster Video put a lot of stores out of business and now they are gone as well. Radio can adapt or die if nobody wants the current product...

 

[TexasTom]

• Older people are empty nesters. They spend less.
• They have life-long brand preferences; it costs more to convince them than the possible profit involved.
• They are on limited retirement incomes and have little or no discretionary income.
• The product an advertiser is selling is designed for younger people to begin with.

It seems to me that both broadcast radio and TV need to find ways to counter those arguments, because at the rate that things are going the only audience that they're going to have left in any significant quantities is going to be those who are over 54. I saw some statistics regarding the average age of viewers for broadcast TV programs and how rapidly those average ages have increased in a very short period of time (five or six years) -- it's not that younger people aren't watching these shows, it's just that they're watching through streaming services instead of broadcast (or cable) channels. I don't get the impression that radio's average audience age is going up quite as fast, but it is going up.

So what are broadcasters going to do when 90% of the available audience is 55+? Chasing the splinter that is under that age isn't going to impress those advertisers that want young viewers and listeners much, so broadcasters are going to have a figure out a way of pitching advertisers on the value of the audience that they can get. An audience that has a lot of discretionary income and substantial amounts of personal wealth. An audience that may not buy diapers and baby food anymore and which may not be persuadable on what brand of deodorant to use -- but which certainly does spend money on things like cars, travel, and dining out.

 

[TheBigA]

It seems to me that both broadcast radio and TV need to find ways to counter those arguments, because at the rate that things are going the only audience that they're going to have left in any significant quantities is going to be those who are over 54.

It's all up to the advertisers. Radio stations will play whatever gets advertising.

I don't know anyone who makes programming decisions based on their own personal taste.

 

[davideduardo]

It seems to me that both broadcast radio and TV need to find ways to counter those arguments,

CBS TV, the oldest leaning of the traditional TV networks, has spent millions over the last decade or so trying to convince national advertisers that they should focus more on older viewers. They even got consent from ad agencies to approach their clients to make such presentations to corporate executives and ad department heads.

The result is minimal, if any.

 

[tbolt909]

CBS TV, the oldest leaning of the traditional TV networks, has spent millions over the last decade or so trying to convince national advertisers that they should focus more on older viewers. They even got consent from ad agencies to approach their clients to make such presentations to corporate executives and ad department heads.

The result is minimal, if any.

The days of NBC, CBS, and ABC being the only 3 networks are long gone. I would expect that most of the people who are watching 60 MINUTES are well over 55. The technology landscape has changed and the public no longer has a shared viewing experience. Shows like Bonanza, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Seinfeld and way too many to list were once viewed by millions at the same time. Advertisers had a captive audience. Now, they have to chase a moving target to get the demos they covet.

I watch very little network TV anymore and the advertisers won't miss me. I'd rather watch old shows and movies. The actors were better and the writing was often literate. Now, get off my lawn...😑

 

[davideduardo]

The days of NBC, CBS, and ABC being the only 3 networks are long gone. I would expect that most of the people who are watching 60 MINUTES are well over 55.

And that is my point in bringing up the CBS network's efforts to convince national advertisers that they should "talk to" those over 50 (the key demo in TV is 18-49) to enhance sales. Because CBS is the oldest leaning of the "Big Six" national over the air networks, they had a vested interest in selling the benefits of older viewers.

The technology landscape has changed and the public no longer has a shared viewing experience. Shows like Bonanza, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Seinfeld and way too many to list were once viewed by millions at the same time.

And they still are. But instead of 20 million to 30 million for a well performing network show, they get, perhaps, 6 to 10 million in the first 24 hours and another 3 to 5 million in the next 7 days. And then they get millions more on the paid services like Peacock, Paramount Plus and Hulu. Even Univision has Vix for its shows, domestically and in all of Latin America.

Advertisers had a captive audience. Now, they have to chase a moving target to get the demos they covet...

Not really. They just allocate money differently. Media is sold by the number of viewers, streamers, readers or listeners. To get the same reach as they could get with ABC, CBS and NBC in the 60's and 70's, they now also have to buy Fox, Univision, Telemundo, certain cable channels and a bunch of add supported services like Sling or services like Max that have ad tiers and add-free ones.

 

[gr8oldies]

Again, (and I should write a single keystroke macro for this) advertisers don't want to reach older listeners. If you are lucky enough to be allowed a glimpse into their proprietary research, you see a variety of factors depending on the product or service:

• Older people are empty nesters. They spend less.
• They have life-long brand preferences; it costs more to convince them than the possible profit involved.
• They are on limited retirement incomes and have little or no discretionary income.
• The product an advertiser is selling is designed for younger people to begin with.

If national accounts want to reach older people, they use national, and not local, media. One buy, national coverage. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and some of the stream / cable channels that run old TV shows all day. The AARP magazine, websites for health information. And so on.

Local radio is very hard to buy. Every station needs an order, copy or a recorded spot, verification of invoices, payments and accounting. Even with big groups, buying still involves filling in with many operators to reach an audience of comparable size in every market.

And who would buy ads on those stations?

"Smooth Jazz" is a format that has been dead for about two decades. 40's and 50's music gets people in their 80's. Even 60's and 70's only gets folks in their 70's. Nearly no advertiser has any interest in those. And none can be done on AM as nobody will put up with music on AM any longer (except for a few ethnic stations where the audience has no other choices).

That just reminded me that the AARP was the title sponsor for the Rolling Stones tour.

 

[michael hagerty]

It seems to me that both broadcast radio and TV need to find ways to counter those arguments, because at the rate that things are going the only audience that they're going to have left in any significant quantities is going to be those who are over 54. I saw some statistics regarding the average age of viewers for broadcast TV programs and how rapidly those average ages have increased in a very short period of time (five or six years) -- it's not that younger people aren't watching these shows, it's just that they're watching through streaming services instead of broadcast (or cable) channels. I don't get the impression that radio's average audience age is going up quite as fast, but it is going up.

So what are broadcasters going to do when 90% of the available audience is 55+? Chasing the splinter that is under that age isn't going to impress those advertisers that want young viewers and listeners much, so broadcasters are going to have a figure out a way of pitching advertisers on the value of the audience that they can get. An audience that has a lot of discretionary income and substantial amounts of personal wealth. An audience that may not buy diapers and baby food anymore and which may not be persuadable on what brand of deodorant to use -- but which certainly does spend money on things like cars, travel, and dining out.

Here's the problem, Tom:

Let's agree to the discretionary income and personal wealth , though I know a lot of people who have a chunk of money but live like all they have is their Social Security check because they might surprise themselves and live to 100.

And I know a lot more with modest savings who ARE living on their Social Security check. The national average SS check is $1,904 a month. The absolute max---someone who averaged a six-figure salary for the past 35 years---is $3,800 a month (that bumps up to $4,873 if that person waited until age 70 to start collecting the benefit).

Let's assume that you and I are in that lucky first group, doing well and willing to splurge here and there. In other words, we're not going to stop going out to dinner, traveling domestically and abroad and we're not gonna die driving the car we bought when we were 60.

Okay.

When was the last time seeing a car advertisement prompted you to take an action that ended in you making a purchase of any car---much less that car?

What sort of advertising would a restaurant have to do to get you to go there?

So much of both of those categories are word of mouth and research---friends and reviews in the case of cars, friends, Yelp! and the county health department restaurant reports in the case of restaurants.

And why do we do those things? Because we've lived a while and are no longer easily persuadable by advertising. The last car I bought that got on my radar via advertising was when I was 19. That taught me.

Now, travel...that's an opportunity. A well-produced TV spot showing me some fabulous place I've never been or haven't been in a while could get me thinking about packing a suitcase.

It's gonna be pretty close to impossible, though, to get me to change my favorite airline or car rental company or hotel chain. A bad experience with either of those can screw up an otherwise wonderful vacation. So it's probably tourism bureaus that are producing that commercial and buying that time.

And then you have the question---how many people over 55 with substantial amounts of personal wealth are listening to over-the-air commercial radio and watching commercial TV?

Just because both mediums are on their way to having only a top-heavy demographic pool from which to fish doesn't mean the big fish (financially) are in that pool.

I'm 68. My wife is 61. I can count on one hand the number of broadcast TV shows we watch (usually via DVR so we can skip the commercials). The rest is streaming and has been for the better part of a decade. Same with radio---non-comm classical/jazz and my own library. Apart from that, very little commercial radio listening.

So most of the advertising is never going to reach me. And I'm not even number 999,999 on the list of the world's one million most tech-friendly seniors.

 

[gr8oldies]

Here's the problem, Tom:

Let's agree to the discretionary income and personal wealth , though I know a lot of people who have a chunk of money but live like all they have is their Social Security check because they might surprise themselves and live to 100.

And I know a lot more with modest savings who ARE living on their Social Security check. The national average SS check is $1,904 a month. The absolute max---someone who averaged a six-figure salary for the past 35 years---is $3,800 a month (that bumps up to $4,873 if that person waited until age 70 to start collecting the benefit).

Let's assume that you and I are in that lucky first group, doing well and willing to splurge here and there. In other words, we're not going to stop going out to dinner, traveling domestically and abroad and we're not gonna die driving the car we bought when we were 60.

Okay.

When was the last time seeing a car advertisement prompted you to take an action that ended in you making a purchase of any car---much less that car?

What sort of advertising would a restaurant have to do to get you to go there?

So much of both of those categories are word of mouth and research---friends and reviews in the case of cars, friends, Yelp! and the county health department restaurant reports in the case of restaurants.

And why do we do those things? Because we've lived a while and are no longer easily persuadable by advertising. The last car I bought that got on my radar via advertising was when I was 19. That taught me.

Now, travel...that's an opportunity. A well-produced TV spot showing me some fabulous place I've never been or haven't been in a while could get me thinking about packing a suitcase.

It's gonna be pretty close to impossible, though, to get me to change my favorite airline or car rental company or hotel chain. A bad experience with either of those can screw up an otherwise wonderful vacation. So it's probably tourism bureaus that are producing that commercial and buying that time.

And then you have the question---how many people over 55 with substantial amounts of personal wealth are listening to over-the-air commercial radio and watching commercial TV?

Just because both mediums are on their way to having only a top-heavy demographic pool from which to fish doesn't mean the big fish (financially) are in that pool.

I'm 68. My wife is 61. I can count on one hand the number of broadcast TV shows we watch (usually via DVR so we can skip the commercials). The rest is streaming and has been for the better part of a decade. Same with radio---non-comm classical/jazz and my own library. Apart from that, very little commercial radio listening.

So most of the advertising is never going to reach me. And I'm not even number 999,999 on the list of the world's one million most tech-friendly seniors.

I have been in the tourism industry. Even with social media and TV advertising budgets, that attraction and hotel/cabin operators still use a lot of print. Stop by the Welcome Center or almost anywhere and pick up a coupon book or standalone card. As for car-buying, the profit on that car is largely going to be in selling the financing, rust-proofing, extended warranties, etc. If a senior plunks down cash, there goes that.

 

[tbolt909]

Without quoting Michael's lengthy post-- The demos that advertisers want don't have any more money than retirees.
They rack up bills and huge credit card debt. Sure, maybe younger folks aren't savvy and cave in to impulse buying.
I guess advertisers count on that so they are easy prey.

Older demos are still consumers until they die. Many are still active. They travel, dine, shop, etc.. Many merchants are happy to get their business. Pharmaceutical companies certainly must think old folks respond to advertising because the airwaves are filled with ads pushing all kinds of drugs promising a Fountain of Youth...

 

[michael hagerty]

Older demos are still consumers until they die. Many are still active. They travel, dine, shop, etc.. Many merchants are happy to get their business. Pharmaceutical companies certainly must think old folks respond to advertising because the airwaves are filled with ads pushing all kinds of drugs promising a Fountain of Youth...

Yes, but those products aren't usually brand persuasion ads. Pharmaceuticals tend to be specific. There's not a Coke/Pepsi battle going on between them.

The fundamental truth, stated by @DavidEduardo dozens of times over the past 20+ years on this board, is that it takes many more plays of an ad for it to even register with an older viewer or listener, much less to make it effective.

 

[TheBigA]

Once again, lets be clear: Advertisers have products they want to sell seniors. They have advertising aimed at seniors. The only thing most don't do is use MUSIC programming to reach older demos. They have other ways to do it, and for radio, it's mainly news & talk. They also use cable TV and other non-broadcast media. The advertising they create is typically longer in length with a lot of legal copy and disclaimers. This is why advertisers that target older demos prefer infomercials to regular spots. They will use regular spots to reinforce the messages in their informercials, or promote the airtimes of their infomercials. But basically the kind of advertising they do doesn't work well with 50s-60s music formats.

 

[michael hagerty]

The demos that advertisers want don't have any more money than retirees.

This is not necessarily true. The median household income in the U.S. this year is $80,610. The average household with two people on Social Security is $45,696.

Sure, the retired couple may (but also may not) have considerable savings, but the point is not to spend that.

So there's a huge gap between people in their peak earning years and retirees.

There's also a considerable gap in necessary spending. My life was a lot more expensive, and it was much harder to save, when I was working and had two school-age children.

Now, as an empty nester, retired couple, our life and expenses are much simpler. The daily commutes and school drop-offs and pickups are gone, so that's gas, oil and maintenance saved. School supplies, school clothes, extra-cirricular activity fees aren't an issue any more. When there are four people in a house, and two are adolescents or teens, I promise you the food costs are well more than double that of two adults. As is health, dental and vision insurance.

As is the amount of life insurance it's prudent to carry to make sure your spouse and kids are cared for if something happens to you before the kids are grown.

They rack up bills and huge credit card debt

Some do. Many families budget sensibly. A Bankrate survey earlier this year found only 49% of credit card holders carry balances over month-to-month.

Sure, maybe younger folks aren't savvy and cave in to impulse buying.

Advertising is less about impulse buying and more about creating brand preference through something other than experience with the product. A suggestion that your life will become better with it, that you'll feel more successful, popular, etc.

That sort of advertising tends to stop working on well-adjusted people by the time they get past 30. But then, a lot of that group is having children, and there's absolutely impulsive desires for products, restaurants, theme parks, etc. among kids.

Or---and this is important to families and others on a budget---a pitch that your product is as good as brand "A", but costs less.

But again, by the time you're 55 or older, you've decided you prefer this toothpaste over that one and don't need to save 39 cents a tube. Or you've already discovered that Barbasol at $1.99 a can does as good a job as Gillette Foamy at $3.49.

 

[exbloguero]

And I know a lot more with modest savings who ARE living on their Social Security check. The national average SS check is $1,904 a month. The absolute max---someone who averaged a six-figure salary for the past 35 years---is $3,800 a month (that bumps up to $4,873 if that person waited until age 70 to start collecting the benefit).

Now I understand why so many American adults are living in tourist areas in Mexico, all along the Pacific coast.

 

[Kent]

When was the last time seeing a car advertisement prompted you to take an action that ended in you making a purchase of any car---much less that car?

And why do we do those things? Because we've lived a while and are no longer easily persuadable by advertising. The last car I bought that got on my radar via advertising was when I was 19. That taught me.

You may have more options in larger markets, but keep in mind, also, that car dealerships are fewer than they were in before the Great Recession. They're also more heavily consolidated. Most markets had at least two times more Ford, GM, and Chrysler dealerships than they needed (some had six times more of those dealerships than they could comfortably support), and the Great Recession eliminated most of the redundant dealerships. My last radio job was eliminated when two auto dealerships that were six figure spenders with the station shut down. They didn't sell or consolidate; they just sold their inventory, locked the doors, and walked away.

I live in a small city of just over 100,000. We had two or three Ford, GM and Chrysler dealerships each. That doesn't include the two Honda dealerships, or the couple Toyota dealers, or any of the other import motor dealers. Between roughly a dozen dealerships, we had about eight unique owners. We had at least one dealership in every break, and a couple of them dropped north of $50,000/year for sponsorships of events, our weather radar, and other non-spot buys. When the Great Recession hit, we went down to one dealership for each brand. Since then, a dealership out of Little Rock has bought the bulk of the dealers in town. The result is that we went from eight unique owners to three.

That's significant because, if I was interested in a Ford, advertising your specials might get me into your dealership versus the other one in town. The other no longer exists, and the remaining Ford dealership has less incentive to advertise its specials. I have to visit them or go out of town. Also, with Ford, Nissan, Honda, Kia, and Hyundai under the same ownership (as well as Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz under a different umbrella), they're no longer competing with each other like they were 20 years ago. The dealerships here don't advertise on any medium like they did 15-20 years ago. They still advertise and even still advertise on radio, but they do so a lot more sparingly. The people in Little Rock don't care much what you buy so long as you buy from them, and, if you're set on a specific vehicle, they've got you when you walk in the door. With talk that Nissan may go bankrupt in the next three years, we might not yet have seen the bottom.

 

[michael hagerty]

Now I understand why so many American adults are living in tourist areas in Mexico, all along the Pacific coast.

Absolutely. In fact, I knew a guy who had been planning exactly that retirement for 20 years, specifically because of how much farther his (limited) dollars would go.